The Grey River Argus FRIDAY, September 26, 1941. WATERFRONT ECONOMICS.

Grey River Argus, 26 September 1941, Page 4

The Grey River Argus FRIDAY, September 26, 1941. WATERFRONT ECONOMICS.

Modern warfare lias shifted the strain of campaigning much further from the front line than it even reached a quarter of a century ago. In the factories and arteries of transport the gravity is centred as never before. A cablegram records the unloading at a British port of a million tons of grain in a day by watersiders. Needless to say. they could not maintain such a speed. Yet there are pacemakers —not in the ranks of manual workers—whose idea is a continuous increase of speed along with a continuous concentration of operations, as if men were the same as machines, and could speed up in proportion to every acceleration gained by fresh mechanical inventions.

There is an illustration to-day in the Dominion of this conception that men should behave like machines. The Wellington Harbour Board has just had a committee report that during the last five years costs of handling cargo have been increased, from which it is inferred that the man-hour-rate of operation , has lo f st intensity. The Wateriront Control Commission has replied pretty effectively with an offer independently of the Board to handle cargoes far more speedily, cheaply and efficiently. The Commission, however, points to one factor left too much out . of account in the Board’s investigation. It is notorious that, longbefore the war, the Board embarked on a monopolistic policy. It endeavoured to concentrate shipping in its own port at the expense of all lesser ones in the. neighbourhood. The promise was made that economy would be possible for everybody, whereas 1 it is probable that much loss resulted for every coastal port past which cargo was railed to the capital, and on top of that, both the Commission and the Board have to confess that congestion of cargoes has inevitably prevented economy. Wellington wharf sheds are so jammed with commodities that time is lost thereby, and it appears as if the Board’s Committee of Inquiry wishes to make a scapegoat of the workers. The Commission rightly points out that the Board’s comparisons between the present earnings of the watcr.siders and those of 1935 are misleading. Five or six years ago the watersiders were in many cases unable to make ends meet. In addition to a better rate, the workers now have more work—“round the clock.’’ in fact, and little week-end respite—so that overtime enters into the calculation. It is entirely at the Board’s behest, and to keep up the war effort, also to keep up with the concentration of trade —that the Wellington watersiders labour longer hours, often at higher rates, and it surely is unfair to blame them for the consequences. No doubt, were there double the present labour supply, and men ready to eke out an existence on half of the remuneration at present obtained, there might be greater speeding; but to-day the call is for men for the forces. Hence the old time labour surplus beloved of cmployerdom is out of question. In view of the Commission’s challenge, however, it appeal’s that the workers could increase economy if they had a freer hand, but the fact of the matter is that they are not offered any inducement. If the Board wishes enormously moi” goods to be handled in a shorter space of time, it simply must allow for an increase in cost and also for the delaying effects of congestion and overtime. It does not appear that under normal conditions the policy of a transport monopoly for a particular port is economical, since that policy has had a test in war time on which the Board itself has given an adverse judgment. It loads the watersiders with the main responsibility for effects over which they have little control. Recently, it has been complained that watersiders have been going from smaller ports to the two at which shipping is concentrated. This in itself is proof of maldistribution. No doubt the exigencies of war have dictated the quickest turning round of ships, and the bringing of cargoes to them. It is undenlnbln +lmvpfn.re. that the work-

ers on the waterfront have by their efforts rendered this policy workable, the one object in view has been attained, and the fact of cost being greater is no cause from grumbling. There is a lesson in the Wellington waterfront statistics. It is the fact that where the human agent is a major motive element, mechanical progression in speed and cheapness is not possible. Even if the Commission should improve on the present rates of operation both in turnover and cost, it is not to say that progressive economy would be . attainable. Except for the sake of the war effort. the fact of the matter is that it would be an objective not worth aiming at. Men are not 1 o be regarded as machines.